Invisible means not visible, you can't be seen while invisible, you're concealed from view. So there will be game elements that tells you they can see invisible creature.
What you guys keep missing here is that "invisible" doesn't mean that in 2024 because it's never defined like that anywhere. There's a condition called "Invisible", and a spell called "Invisibility", and neither of these mention anything about not being visible. Remember, in 2014 the condition had the description that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." This defined what it means to be an invisible creature in a way that aligns with our traditional concept of invisible creatures. The 2024 rules do not currently do this.
Right now, a normal creature with normal vision can look at an invisible creature and see them just fine just as easily as they can see any non-invisible creature. This is likely the intent when it comes to looking at a Hidden creature, but surely not when looking at an invisible creature. It's just a monumentally massive oversight that needs to be corrected. Otherwise, 100% of DMs will be house ruling this.
As I mentioned earlier in a post, the key for me is the word Concealed and its usual meaning in English. The word itself is part of the rule and must be taken into account.
Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
And then, you need to consider how property was obtained—whether by hiding, spell, or other means.
I don't expect people to agree with me :)
Don't bother. They want it to be spelled out like it was in 2014, but WotC removed it on purpose. The text they want was present in all the playtests, but it was removed on final print. You can present the definition of each word per dictionary, and they still won't accept it because it's not in the text. This is why I hate rules lawyering: its just a convenient tool to extract as many benefits as possible while denying others the same
What invalidate the Invisible condition is in the parameters for Hiding, which differ from the Invisibility spell.
Notice how Perception is used to detect Concealed creature, and not Invisible creature, which is what you try to do when Hiding, as opposed to the spell;
Hiding: With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight;
As I mentioned earlier in a post, the key for me is the word Concealed and its usual meaning in English. The word itself is part of the rule and must be taken into account.
Concealed. You aren't affected by any effect that requires its target to be seen unless the effect's creator can somehow see you. Any equipment you are wearing or carrying is also concealed.
And then, you need to consider how property was obtained—whether by hiding, spell, or other means.
I don't expect people to agree with me :)
The problem with that is that the word "concealed" is not being used in this context in a plain English way. It's a bolded keyword that's listed as one of three effects that is experienced by a creature who has the Condition, and then that keyword is immediately defined. Unfortunately, the definition doesn't say anything about actually being invisible -- it has to do with not being affected by an effect that requires its target to be seen.
This is another example where this rule is trying to refer back to another rule that doesn't exist. For example, the intention is that if you are trying to cast a spell which uses the phrase "you target a creature that you can see" then this "invisible" creature cannot be targeted by such a spell. Unfortunately, as written, that doesn't work correctly. Because you can simply look at that creature to see it and then you can cast your spell at it. The Condition forgot to define what it actually means to be invisible -- that's the whole point. It's just a list of a bunch of features that assumes that this has already been defined somewhere when it actually has not been.
Right now, a normal creature with normal vision can look at an invisible creature and see them just fine just as easily as they can see any non-invisible creature. This is likely the intent when it comes to looking at a Hidden creature, but surely not when looking at an invisible creature. It's just a monumentally massive oversight that needs to be corrected. Otherwise, 100% of DMs will be house ruling this.
And again, this description was removed on purpose from the final publication, because otherwise the Invisible condition meant Hiding could only be broken by magical means.
This was actually the fatal mistake. The developers recognized a potential inconsistency between Hidden creatures and Invisible creatures, but then they took the wrong approach in attempting to solve it.
The fact is, defining what it means to be invisible properly would NOT have meant Hiding could only be broken by magical means . . .
If a creature is hiding behind total cover or is otherwise totally obscured from view, and you do nothing to try to move into a position where you might gain some Line of Sight on that creature, but instead you ONLY rely on a Perception Check to FIND that creature . . . the result of this successful check was not and should not be interpreted to mean that you were able to see the hidden creature! How could you have seen it?? It's behind total cover! The successful perception check represents noticing that the bushes are rustling in an unnatural way, or you notice a shadow of that creature on the wall behind it, or you hear that creature stepping on a twig. You didn't actually see the creature in this case in order to find it, which then breaks the condition in the case of Hiding.
So, all you would have to do to make all of this work correctly is to add the text back into the Invisible Condition that states that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." Then, make it a bit more clear in the rules for Hiding that the Condition only applies as long as you remain Hidden -- once you stop Hiding you lose the Condition. So, the prerequisites for Hiding should be continually required in order to remain Hidden:
1. The DM agrees that the situation is appropriate for Hiding.
2. You are Heavily Obscured OR behind Three-Quarters Cover OR behind Total Cover
3. You must be out of any enemy's Line of Sight (no more arguing for hiding vs this enemy but not that enemy)
While these prerequisites continue to be met, another creature shouldn't be able to see you anyway! So, a successful Perception check to find such a creature didn't actually mean that you see them (which would contradict the concept of invisibility), it just means that you find them.
----------
The above fix should be fairly obvious and it's honestly pretty shocking that the developers could have botched this so badly for the final publication. I'm actually somewhat optimistic that this will be addressed via errata pretty quickly since the problem is so glaring and the solution is so obvious.
If anyone could see Invisible creature under the Invisibility spell, the Invisible condition would be useless. The See Invisibility spell would be useless.Truesight would be useless.
That's evidence for it being badly written, not evidence that it doesn't say what it says.
But the rules you quoted don't say normal senses via Perception let you see someone under the Invisibility spell like you claim.
Invisible means not visible, you can't be seen while invisible, you're concealed from view. So there will be game elements that tells you they can see invisible creature.
So effectively the rule says that you can't be seen unless you can be seen? They go through no examples or descriptions on what "somehow see you" means. Does it mean you're just invisible to creatures that are blind/blinded as they have no way of seeing you? Does it mean that Truesight and See Invisibility don't work against it? There is literally no definition and could vary wildly from table to table.
Trying to tie Hiding and Invisible together was a HUGE mistake that has cause so many other unintended consequences....
People really like to argue about semantics minutia, especially when the books haven't even been published yet.
Here's a whole-ass example:
Conditions: you are some character with a crossbow, in a fight in an orchard or second-growth forest (somewhere with plenty of trees and foliage, but it's not difficult terrain). There's a rogue, armed with a shortsword, coming to stab you. For whatever reason, he isn't hidden yet, and is only 20 feet away. It's your turn. Your turn: you shoot at the rogue with a crossbow. Maybe you hit, maybe you miss (irrelevant for this example). For some reason, you stand your ground rather than try to "kite" him at greater-than-single-move distance. His turn: he scampers behind a tree and successfully hides. ("crap, I lost him!") He is now, effectively, invisible. He then sneaks up on you the remaining distance and stabs you with advantage and sneak attack ("blargh! he came out of nowhere! ouch!")
How could you have prevented this?:
Your turn: since you can see him, and know damn well he's trying to come up and stab you, and know damn well he'll try to hide and get sneak attack...instead of shooting with your crossbow and/or kiting him, you ready a Search action, for when he vanishes from sight. His turn: he moves in and hides behind a tree, triggering your reaction. You succeed at a search, beating his hide roll with your perception roll! You know where he is! He proceeds to leave cover and try to get to you, and is told (by the DM, per the hide rules) that you see him, and he doesn't have the invisible condition. He runs up and stabs you anyway? (just without sneak attack)
What about edge cases?:
It's a field with some bushes, but only one good hiding spot (a lone tree): the DM makes him roll hide with disadvantage, because his trick is a little obvious. It's a field with no meaningful cover or obscurement: he can't hide. It's a featureless white plane with a single tree, labeled "obvious hiding spot": the DM rules that he just can't hide there, because it's too obvious. You have an ally on the other side of him: he hasn't broken line of site with all combatents, thus can't hide behind the tree. But but, I totally told the DM that I keep an eye on him!: meaningless, unless you took an action to represent that (like the above "ready a search action") Maybe the DM decided you needed to change your angle on the tree to search: OK, as part of your search (re)action, you take a few steps to the side to get a non-total-cover view of his hiding spot.
Haggling about the definition of "concealed" or "invisible" or whether or not the dictionary defines what "invisible" means doesn't actually change any of that.
I do kinda hope the DMG covers holistic examples of complicated things like "hiding in combat" and "ambushes" and other actual DM advice. Who knows?
I would personally rule that a rogue cannot hide behind a tree that's 20 feet away to become invisible and then walk 20 feet in the open towards you to stab you while hidden. If nothing else, this would fall under "the DM decides when the situation is appropriate for hiding". But beyond that, the rules for hiding grant the invisible condition on a successful stealth check. That check expires when you are no longer hiding and when that check expires the Condition ends. That's how I interpret what's written. I don't really understand how people are interpreting the rules for hiding as meaning that you just become a fully invisible creature without restriction. That's not what the rules are saying.
I would personally rule that a rogue cannot hide behind a tree that's 20 feet away to become invisible and then walk 20 feet in the open towards you to stab you while hidden. If nothing else, this would fall under "the DM decides when the situation is appropriate for hiding".
Understandable, but that's (very probably) literally why they made hiding use the invisible condition rather than a different one: to make hiding work with melee attacks. The "common sense" interpretation is that they aren't "truly" transparent-invisible, just that they're avoiding your gaze while you are distracted by anything-other-than-a-search-action. The "DM decides" stuff is indeed necessary for really-obvious cases where there aren't distractions.
Cinematically speaking, it's quite common for people to "disappear" in not-really-plain-sight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUg4ZwsuitU, and that's a fine trope for D&D to chase (especially at levels where stealth proficiencies are high enough to regularly beat DC 15).
But beyond that, the rules for hiding grant the invisible condition on a successful stealth check. That check expires when you are no longer hiding and when that check expires the Condition ends. That's how I interpret what's written. I don't really understand how people are interpreting the rules for hiding as meaning that you just become a fully invisible creature without restriction. That's not what the rules are saying.
It really doesn't say what you think it does. "you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component" does not actually include "when you are no longer hiding." You're free to rule otherwise, and I understand why you don't like what it says, but it says what it says specifically to allow rogues to get hidden sneak attacks in melee. At least, that's my interpretation.
I would personally rule that a rogue cannot hide behind a tree that's 20 feet away to become invisible and then walk 20 feet in the open towards you to stab you while hidden. If nothing else, this would fall under "the DM decides when the situation is appropriate for hiding". But beyond that, the rules for hiding grant the invisible condition on a successful stealth check. That check expires when you are no longer hiding and when that check expires the Condition ends. That's how I interpret what's written. I don't really understand how people are interpreting the rules for hiding as meaning that you just become a fully invisible creature without restriction. That's not what the rules are saying.
Except that is what the new rules say. You hide, you become invisible. You only lose this if you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you (typically requires a Search Action), you cast a spell with a verbal component, or you make an attack roll. So the rogue who dipped behind the tree would be fully invisible on their turn until they stabbed you.
And again, this description was removed on purpose from the final publication, because otherwise the Invisible condition meant Hiding could only be broken by magical means.
I agree, but that was why they shouldn't have used the invisible condition for hiding in the first place.
If anyone could see Invisible creature under the Invisibility spell, the Invisible condition would be useless. The See Invisibility spell would be useless.Truesight would be useless.
That's evidence for it being badly written, not evidence that it doesn't say what it says.
But the rules you quoted don't say normal senses via Perception let you see someone under the Invisibility spell like you claim.
Invisible means not visible, you can't be seen while invisible, you're concealed from view. So there will be game elements that tells you they can see invisible creature.
So effectively the rule says that you can't be seen unless you can be seen? They go through no examples or descriptions on what "somehow see you" means. Does it mean you're just invisible to creatures that are blind/blinded as they have no way of seeing you? Does it mean that Truesight and See Invisibility don't work against it? There is literally no definition and could vary wildly from table to table.
Trying to tie Hiding and Invisible together was a HUGE mistake that has cause so many other unintended consequences....
Game elements that can see invisible things will say so, for exemple The See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc...
I believe that it does say it though, it's just less explicit than it was in 2014.
It says ON a successful check you HAVE the condition. Those small words are important. You don't gain the condition or acquire the condition. You have it on a successful check. Also, not after the check or when you make the check. You have the condition on this check. So, when that check goes away, you don't have it any more. The condition is attached to the check -- this is what makes hiding different than being actually invisible and that portion was carefully worded. By wording it like this, I believe that they felt that explicitly saying "until you stop hiding" was too redundant and obvious. Logically you should only benefit from hiding when you are hidden. Just like you should only benefit as an unseen attacker while you are unseen or you should only continue to have boosted AC while you continue to wear your armor, and so on.
Game elements that can see invisible things will say so, for exemple The See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc...
So you can't see a hiding creature without magic?
The core problem is that invisibilitymust require a special sense, and hidemust not, so either they have to put that requirement into one of those things (which they didn't do) or they have to separate the conditions.
"On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check."
Followed immediately by
"The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
(I added emphasis to both)
Seeing a hidden person requires a Perception check, not a special sense.
Game elements that can see invisible things will say so, for exemple The See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc...
So you can't see a hiding creature without magic?
The core problem is that invisibilitymust require a special sense, and hidemust not, so either they have to put that requirement into one of those things (which they didn't do) or they have to separate the conditions.
Hiding's Invisible condition can also be seen by special sense See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc... But not the other way, you can't see someone Invisible via Invisibility spell with normal Perception.
Like i said, what invalidate the Invisible condition is in the parameters for Hiding, which differ from the Invisibility spell.
Notice how Perception is used to detect Concealed creature, and not Invisible creature, which is what you try to do when Hiding, as opposed to the spell;
Hiding: With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight;
Seeing a hidden person requires a Perception check, not a special sense.
As currently written, that's correct (at least partially; we know that a perception check is a way to 'find' but not that it's the only way). The problem is that the spell is completely silent on the topic, as are all the monster and item special abilities that grant the condition, and if you add verbiage to the condition to require enhanced senses, you break hide because you need the enhanced sense and a perception check.
Changing the spell (and all other things that grant the condition) to specify that enhanced senses are required is an option... but they didn't do it.
Seeing a hidden person requires a Perception check, not a special sense.
As currently written, that's correct (at least partially; we know that a perception check is a way to 'find' but not that it's the only way). The problem is that the spell is completely silent on the topic, as are all the monster and item special abilities that grant the condition, and if you add verbiage to the condition to require enhanced senses, you break hide because you need the enhanced sense and a perception check.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
The core problem is that invisibilitymust require a special sense, and hidemust not, so either they have to put that requirement into one of those things (which they didn't do) or they have to separate the conditions.
I touched on this in an earlier post, but I don't think that this is necessarily true. If the Invisible Condition were fixed to actually make creatures invisible then it would still be ok to apply this to hidden creatures since you shouldn't be able to see a hidden creature anyway. To "find" a hidden creature with a perception check, you don't necessarily have to see that creature. You might be noticing the obscuring foliage rustling unnaturally or you might see their shadow on the nearby floor or walls or you might hear them. This wouldn't have been a problem.
Hiding's Invisible condition can also be seen by special sense See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc...
First of all, I wonder if someone with early access can check and see if the See Invisibility spell has been changed in any way in 2024.
However, here are some current thoughts about See Invisibility. For reference, I'll post the 2014 version:
For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible
It's important to notice that if a creature with this ability actually sees an invisible creature in this way, that does NOT cause the Invisible Condition to be ended on that creature.
Secondly, notice that you only see invisible creatures as if they were visible. So, if such a creature is actually hidden behind total cover, you still cannot see them. Because even if such a creature is a visible (non-hidden) creature, you still do not have Line of Sight to be able to see that creature. Nothing about the See Invisibility ability changes that.
Seeing a hidden person requires a Perception check, not a special sense.
As currently written, that's correct (at least partially; we know that a perception check is a way to 'find' but not that it's the only way). The problem is that the spell is completely silent on the topic, as are all the monster and item special abilities that grant the condition, and if you add verbiage to the condition to require enhanced senses, you break hide because you need the enhanced sense and a perception check.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
Some of you are continuing to assume that the debate is only about which situations can "break" (or in other words, "end" or "remove") the Condition. You are failing to see that the spell never actually makes a creature invisible. It only gives the creature the Invisible Condition. And that Condition also never actually makes a creature invisible. That's the problem. It's not only about what "breaks" the Condition or what "breaks" the spell. It's also about what the Condition and the Spell actually DO in the first place.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
For clarity, I am not saying that looking a person under the effects of invisibility breaks the spell -- it doesn't. Rather, it makes the condition irrelevant because it negates the bonuses associated with being invisible (advantage on attacks, disadvantage on being attacked).
Game elements that can see invisible things will say so, for exemple The See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc...
So you can't see a hiding creature without magic?
The core problem is that invisibilitymust require a special sense, and hidemust not, so either they have to put that requirement into one of those things (which they didn't do) or they have to separate the conditions.
Hiding's Invisible condition can also be seen by special sense See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc... But not the other way, you can't see someone Invisible via Invisibility spell with normal Perception.
Like i said, what invalidate the Invisible condition is in the parameters for Hiding, which differ from the Invisibility spell.
Notice how Perception is used to detect Concealed creature, and not Invisible creature, which is what you try to do when Hiding, as opposed to the spell;
Hiding: With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight;
Skill:
Perception
Concealed creature of object
So See Invisibility in 5.24 is X-ray vision? And it gives you the ability to know where every hidden character is?
This is just breaking down more and more....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don't bother. They want it to be spelled out like it was in 2014, but WotC removed it on purpose. The text they want was present in all the playtests, but it was removed on final print. You can present the definition of each word per dictionary, and they still won't accept it because it's not in the text. This is why I hate rules lawyering: its just a convenient tool to extract as many benefits as possible while denying others the same
What invalidate the Invisible condition is in the parameters for Hiding, which differ from the Invisibility spell.
Notice how Perception is used to detect Concealed creature, and not Invisible creature, which is what you try to do when Hiding, as opposed to the spell;
The problem with that is that the word "concealed" is not being used in this context in a plain English way. It's a bolded keyword that's listed as one of three effects that is experienced by a creature who has the Condition, and then that keyword is immediately defined. Unfortunately, the definition doesn't say anything about actually being invisible -- it has to do with not being affected by an effect that requires its target to be seen.
This is another example where this rule is trying to refer back to another rule that doesn't exist. For example, the intention is that if you are trying to cast a spell which uses the phrase "you target a creature that you can see" then this "invisible" creature cannot be targeted by such a spell. Unfortunately, as written, that doesn't work correctly. Because you can simply look at that creature to see it and then you can cast your spell at it. The Condition forgot to define what it actually means to be invisible -- that's the whole point. It's just a list of a bunch of features that assumes that this has already been defined somewhere when it actually has not been.
This was actually the fatal mistake. The developers recognized a potential inconsistency between Hidden creatures and Invisible creatures, but then they took the wrong approach in attempting to solve it.
The fact is, defining what it means to be invisible properly would NOT have meant Hiding could only be broken by magical means . . .
If a creature is hiding behind total cover or is otherwise totally obscured from view, and you do nothing to try to move into a position where you might gain some Line of Sight on that creature, but instead you ONLY rely on a Perception Check to FIND that creature . . . the result of this successful check was not and should not be interpreted to mean that you were able to see the hidden creature! How could you have seen it?? It's behind total cover! The successful perception check represents noticing that the bushes are rustling in an unnatural way, or you notice a shadow of that creature on the wall behind it, or you hear that creature stepping on a twig. You didn't actually see the creature in this case in order to find it, which then breaks the condition in the case of Hiding.
So, all you would have to do to make all of this work correctly is to add the text back into the Invisible Condition that states that "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense." Then, make it a bit more clear in the rules for Hiding that the Condition only applies as long as you remain Hidden -- once you stop Hiding you lose the Condition. So, the prerequisites for Hiding should be continually required in order to remain Hidden:
1. The DM agrees that the situation is appropriate for Hiding.
2. You are Heavily Obscured OR behind Three-Quarters Cover OR behind Total Cover
3. You must be out of any enemy's Line of Sight (no more arguing for hiding vs this enemy but not that enemy)
While these prerequisites continue to be met, another creature shouldn't be able to see you anyway! So, a successful Perception check to find such a creature didn't actually mean that you see them (which would contradict the concept of invisibility), it just means that you find them.
----------
The above fix should be fairly obvious and it's honestly pretty shocking that the developers could have botched this so badly for the final publication. I'm actually somewhat optimistic that this will be addressed via errata pretty quickly since the problem is so glaring and the solution is so obvious.
So effectively the rule says that you can't be seen unless you can be seen? They go through no examples or descriptions on what "somehow see you" means. Does it mean you're just invisible to creatures that are blind/blinded as they have no way of seeing you? Does it mean that Truesight and See Invisibility don't work against it? There is literally no definition and could vary wildly from table to table.
Trying to tie Hiding and Invisible together was a HUGE mistake that has cause so many other unintended consequences....
People really like to argue about semantics minutia, especially when the books haven't even been published yet.
Here's a whole-ass example:
Conditions: you are some character with a crossbow, in a fight in an orchard or second-growth forest (somewhere with plenty of trees and foliage, but it's not difficult terrain). There's a rogue, armed with a shortsword, coming to stab you. For whatever reason, he isn't hidden yet, and is only 20 feet away. It's your turn.
Your turn: you shoot at the rogue with a crossbow. Maybe you hit, maybe you miss (irrelevant for this example). For some reason, you stand your ground rather than try to "kite" him at greater-than-single-move distance.
His turn: he scampers behind a tree and successfully hides. ("crap, I lost him!") He is now, effectively, invisible. He then sneaks up on you the remaining distance and stabs you with advantage and sneak attack ("blargh! he came out of nowhere! ouch!")
How could you have prevented this?:
Your turn: since you can see him, and know damn well he's trying to come up and stab you, and know damn well he'll try to hide and get sneak attack...instead of shooting with your crossbow and/or kiting him, you ready a Search action, for when he vanishes from sight.
His turn: he moves in and hides behind a tree, triggering your reaction. You succeed at a search, beating his hide roll with your perception roll! You know where he is! He proceeds to leave cover and try to get to you, and is told (by the DM, per the hide rules) that you see him, and he doesn't have the invisible condition. He runs up and stabs you anyway? (just without sneak attack)
What about edge cases?:
It's a field with some bushes, but only one good hiding spot (a lone tree): the DM makes him roll hide with disadvantage, because his trick is a little obvious.
It's a field with no meaningful cover or obscurement: he can't hide.
It's a featureless white plane with a single tree, labeled "obvious hiding spot": the DM rules that he just can't hide there, because it's too obvious.
You have an ally on the other side of him: he hasn't broken line of site with all combatents, thus can't hide behind the tree.
But but, I totally told the DM that I keep an eye on him!: meaningless, unless you took an action to represent that (like the above "ready a search action")
Maybe the DM decided you needed to change your angle on the tree to search: OK, as part of your search (re)action, you take a few steps to the side to get a non-total-cover view of his hiding spot.
Haggling about the definition of "concealed" or "invisible" or whether or not the dictionary defines what "invisible" means doesn't actually change any of that.
I do kinda hope the DMG covers holistic examples of complicated things like "hiding in combat" and "ambushes" and other actual DM advice. Who knows?
I would personally rule that a rogue cannot hide behind a tree that's 20 feet away to become invisible and then walk 20 feet in the open towards you to stab you while hidden. If nothing else, this would fall under "the DM decides when the situation is appropriate for hiding". But beyond that, the rules for hiding grant the invisible condition on a successful stealth check. That check expires when you are no longer hiding and when that check expires the Condition ends. That's how I interpret what's written. I don't really understand how people are interpreting the rules for hiding as meaning that you just become a fully invisible creature without restriction. That's not what the rules are saying.
Understandable, but that's (very probably) literally why they made hiding use the invisible condition rather than a different one: to make hiding work with melee attacks. The "common sense" interpretation is that they aren't "truly" transparent-invisible, just that they're avoiding your gaze while you are distracted by anything-other-than-a-search-action. The "DM decides" stuff is indeed necessary for really-obvious cases where there aren't distractions.
Cinematically speaking, it's quite common for people to "disappear" in not-really-plain-sight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUg4ZwsuitU, and that's a fine trope for D&D to chase (especially at levels where stealth proficiencies are high enough to regularly beat DC 15).
It really doesn't say what you think it does. "you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component" does not actually include "when you are no longer hiding." You're free to rule otherwise, and I understand why you don't like what it says, but it says what it says specifically to allow rogues to get hidden sneak attacks in melee. At least, that's my interpretation.
Except that is what the new rules say. You hide, you become invisible. You only lose this if you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you (typically requires a Search Action), you cast a spell with a verbal component, or you make an attack roll. So the rogue who dipped behind the tree would be fully invisible on their turn until they stabbed you.
I agree, but that was why they shouldn't have used the invisible condition for hiding in the first place.
Game elements that can see invisible things will say so, for exemple The See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc...
I believe that it does say it though, it's just less explicit than it was in 2014.
It says ON a successful check you HAVE the condition. Those small words are important. You don't gain the condition or acquire the condition. You have it on a successful check. Also, not after the check or when you make the check. You have the condition on this check. So, when that check goes away, you don't have it any more. The condition is attached to the check -- this is what makes hiding different than being actually invisible and that portion was carefully worded. By wording it like this, I believe that they felt that explicitly saying "until you stop hiding" was too redundant and obvious. Logically you should only benefit from hiding when you are hidden. Just like you should only benefit as an unseen attacker while you are unseen or you should only continue to have boosted AC while you continue to wear your armor, and so on.
So you can't see a hiding creature without magic?
The core problem is that invisibility must require a special sense, and hide must not, so either they have to put that requirement into one of those things (which they didn't do) or they have to separate the conditions.
"On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check."
Followed immediately by
"The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component."
(I added emphasis to both)
Seeing a hidden person requires a Perception check, not a special sense.
Hiding's Invisible condition can also be seen by special sense See Invisibility spell,.Truesight etc... But not the other way, you can't see someone Invisible via Invisibility spell with normal Perception.
Like i said, what invalidate the Invisible condition is in the parameters for Hiding, which differ from the Invisibility spell.
Notice how Perception is used to detect Concealed creature, and not Invisible creature, which is what you try to do when Hiding, as opposed to the spell;
As currently written, that's correct (at least partially; we know that a perception check is a way to 'find' but not that it's the only way). The problem is that the spell is completely silent on the topic, as are all the monster and item special abilities that grant the condition, and if you add verbiage to the condition to require enhanced senses, you break hide because you need the enhanced sense and a perception check.
Changing the spell (and all other things that grant the condition) to specify that enhanced senses are required is an option... but they didn't do it.
The spell is silent on the topic because the spell isn't breakable via a perception check (or other means of "finding"). Things like Truesight and Blindsight would tell you if they break it. (The invisibility spell is better off not listing everything that could break it, since that list could change as new spells are introduced.)
I touched on this in an earlier post, but I don't think that this is necessarily true. If the Invisible Condition were fixed to actually make creatures invisible then it would still be ok to apply this to hidden creatures since you shouldn't be able to see a hidden creature anyway. To "find" a hidden creature with a perception check, you don't necessarily have to see that creature. You might be noticing the obscuring foliage rustling unnaturally or you might see their shadow on the nearby floor or walls or you might hear them. This wouldn't have been a problem.
First of all, I wonder if someone with early access can check and see if the See Invisibility spell has been changed in any way in 2024.
However, here are some current thoughts about See Invisibility. For reference, I'll post the 2014 version:
It's important to notice that if a creature with this ability actually sees an invisible creature in this way, that does NOT cause the Invisible Condition to be ended on that creature.
Secondly, notice that you only see invisible creatures as if they were visible. So, if such a creature is actually hidden behind total cover, you still cannot see them. Because even if such a creature is a visible (non-hidden) creature, you still do not have Line of Sight to be able to see that creature. Nothing about the See Invisibility ability changes that.
Some of you are continuing to assume that the debate is only about which situations can "break" (or in other words, "end" or "remove") the Condition. You are failing to see that the spell never actually makes a creature invisible. It only gives the creature the Invisible Condition. And that Condition also never actually makes a creature invisible. That's the problem. It's not only about what "breaks" the Condition or what "breaks" the spell. It's also about what the Condition and the Spell actually DO in the first place.
For clarity, I am not saying that looking a person under the effects of invisibility breaks the spell -- it doesn't. Rather, it makes the condition irrelevant because it negates the bonuses associated with being invisible (advantage on attacks, disadvantage on being attacked).
So See Invisibility in 5.24 is X-ray vision? And it gives you the ability to know where every hidden character is?
This is just breaking down more and more....